WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday was granted a hearing with the Swedish Supreme Court, where his lawyers will appeal to lift an arrest warrant against the whistleblower which has kept him confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London under political asylum since June 2012.
Maybe Sweden is trying to distance itself from the US, along with the rest of the EU.
But this is only half a victory. Even the US is not brazen enough to violate foreign embassy sovereignty, but grabbing people off the street? Does the names Arrar ring a bell, or Operation Gladio?
There's always been something very fishy about the way various governments have behaved towards Assange. For example, the timing of the sexual assault charges appears to be something more than coincidence: 1. If Assange is prone to sexual assault, he's likely done it hundreds of times, so why was he supposedly "caught" at the precise moment that the US government is most incensed at the leaks at of that time? 2. One of the two of the women who filed sexual complaints against him has since recanted. 3. Why has the Swedish prosecutor's office refused numerous offers for them to travel to the Ecuadoran Embassy in London to interview him (he's not been charged with any crime and simply by the office for "questioning")? The Swedish prosecutor's office has, in the past, traveled to other countries to conduct such interviews but has refused to do so in this case, with no explanation offered for its refusal.
Many people would argue that these charges are less likely to be legitimate than that the two women who made the original complaints were paid to do so by a government eager to see Assange behind bars for now and/or extradicted to the US for a permanent life behind bars.